that all persons deprived of their liberty have access to medical services and assistance". 78 The Complainant further referred to other bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights which elaborated on the duty to provide access to adequate health care, finding that failure to do so constitutes inhuman treatment if not torture. 79 108.The Complainant submits that the Victim made repeated requests, to be seen by a medical doctor during his detention, that were not authorised. According to the Complainant, the prolonged denial of access to a medical doctor and lack of adequate medical treatment was in breach of Article 5 of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 6 of the African Charter 109.The Complainant argues that the African Commission elaborated that[A]n arrest or detention may be legal according to the letter of domestic law, but arbitrary and therefore illegal by reason of its inappropriate, unjust or unpredictable nature. The Complainant referred to the African Commission's Resolution on the Right to Recourse Procedure and Fair Trial, and the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (Principles and Guidelines on Fair Trial) which provides that States must ensure that no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention, and that arrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and by competent officials or persons authorized for that purpose, pursuant to a warrant, on reasonable suspicion or for probable cause.80 110.The Complainant submits that the Victim was detained for over a year. During that time, he was accused of a number of activities, including some that carry heavy criminal penalties in Sudan, but at no point was he informed of any formal charges against him, and he was eventually released without charge. At no point was the Victim shown a warrant for his arrest or any other document relating to the charges under which he was detained. The Complainant further submits that the Victim was also accused of being an "American spy", an agent for the United States Embassy and European Embassies in Sudan, and providing false information to humanitarian and human rights organisations about the situation in Internally Displaced Persons Camps, and information to the ICC about crimes committed in Darfur. The Complainant avers that the Victim's arrest and detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion and at no point was it made clear on what evidence or on what grounds he was suspected of having committed an offence. The Complainant submits that the arrest and detention of the Victim without charge was therefore arbitrary on several counts. 111.Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the applicable domestic legislation, namely the National Security Act 2010, is itself in breach of Article 6 of the African Charter. The Complainant narrates that Article 50 (e-h) of the National Security Act (NSA) 2010, gives NISS officials wide powers to arrest and detain a person on Jt§Aclatj- upon vague grounds for an initial period of up to thirty (30) days ( ..,...:> l'l~iM?11\r "'<: , ..,o """"C, 78 The Robben Island Guidelines, Part II: Prevention of Torture, Article 31. (,,( i' \ ,.t , pel. 79 1/ascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, (2005) 40 EHRR 46, paras. 428, 438, 44~ _nd K udop[n v~Rus • No.59696/00, 26 October 2006, para. 96. 9 ',: 80 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2001 ~ (1j " ~ .-" I u-lJ-" ) :,:. ho '(}. · ? "' ,,, Q "".?. -3•, - -s,o ( h <JV ...~ 'v 4•R•cr.• -~ ..... (c ;:." x ~ J' c,'l Cii,VE E1 Q\;.: 3